[jtfanclub]

1eyedjack, on Mar 20 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

Heck, if the TD had an Abanian flag, and ran a tourney that did NOT suggest Albanian Bridge Federation rules applied, would I still be expected to acquire the Albania equivalent of our Orange book before participating?

What percentage of people do you think read the ACBL handbook before playing in ACBL tourneys? Far less than half, I'll bet.

But it really does help to have some standard. I don't read the traffic laws of every community I drive through, but if a cop pulls me over for having too many mirrors or whatever, you'd better believe that I want *some* book I can look it so I know the cop isn't just making stuff up.

[awm]

Seems like the conclusions here are:

(1) If you occasionally decide to open 1NT with a singleton, this is okay. You can do this because you anticipate rebid problems, or because you "just feel like it" based on opponents or state of the match. This is not really a "psych" if the hand is roughly similar to a notrump opening (i.e. about the same points, singleton probably an honor, etc) -- the term psych refers to bids that are "gross mistatements" like opening 1NT(15-17) with a 4-count or 1♠(5-card majors) on a three-card suit; not to "tactical actions" like opening 1NT(15-17) on a good 14 or with a singleton honor, or opening 1♠(5-card majors) on a strong four-card suit.

(2) However, if you frequently open 1NT on a singleton, or if your partnership has methods which specifically allow the 1NT opener to show the singleton in the subsequent bidding, then this sort of action becomes an agreement. If you have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton on certain patterns, this requires disclosure (in the form of an alert) everywhere in the world, and may be considered an illegal agreement (thus barred) in certain very nit-picky places (like ACBL land).

(3) The hand that Jilly opened 1NT is not one that most of us would open 1NT, because of a combination of lack of strength, support for both majors, and no rebid problem. Of course, this by itself isn't particularly relevent to the issues at hand since her judgement may differ from other people.

(4) It is somewhat troubling that roughly 10% of Jilly's 1NT openings seem to contain a singleton. This percentage is high enough that it may qualify as an agreement and need to be disclosed.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Mar 20 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Mar 20 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

Heck, if the TD had an Abanian flag, and ran a tourney that did NOT suggest Albanian Bridge Federation rules applied, would I still be expected to acquire the Albania equivalent of our Orange book before participating?

What percentage of people do you think read the ACBL handbook before playing in ACBL tourneys? Far less than half, I'll bet.

But it really does help to have some standard. I don't read the traffic laws of every community I drive through, but if a cop pulls me over for having too many mirrors or whatever, you'd better believe that I want *some* book I can look it so I know the cop isn't just making stuff up.

We may be confusing the regulations regarding permitted methods with the regulations regarding alerting and disclosure requirements.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Mar 21 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

(4) It is somewhat troubling that roughly 10% of Jilly's 1NT openings seem to contain a singleton. This percentage is high enough that it may qualify as an agreement and need to be disclosed.

Ben ran a BRBR study for me suggesting that (roughly) 12.9% of my 1NT openings have contained a singleton.

He's going to go and send me a collection of the hands in question so I can look at them a bit more closely. (I readily admit that I've been experimenting with this style for a while now, so I expect that the percentage is a bit higher than it would normally be).

Once again, I will note that it would be useful to understand what the expression "generally" means.

[awm]

So here's the thing that bothers me...

Suppose my agreement was that an opening 1NT showed any 5332, 4333, 4432, or 4441 pattern within some point range. Suppose I will always open all 4441s in range with 1NT. It seems to me that this would be an alertable agreement?

However, the probabilities for these patterns are:

5332: 15.52%
4333: 10.53%
4432: 21.55%
4441: 2.99%

So overall, the 4441s comprise only about 6% of the 1NT openings.

If "I open 1NT on all 4441s in range" is alertable, I would think that another method of decision making where I more frequently have a singleton than this should also be alertable.

[helene_t]

bid_em_up, on Mar 20 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

Suppose you put this hand up as a poll, with the choices of 1C, 1H, 1S or 1N. What percentage would you expect 1N to receive? I am reasonably certain that the percentage would be fairly low, so the call is not justifiable by bridge logic. Given that few, if any, would open 1N on this particular hand, and that you are probably reasonably aware of this, I really think you should bend over backwards not to do it.

As a playing director, knowing that opening 1N on a stiff is, at least, "frowned" upon, do you not think that you should be "more accountable" to abiding by this?

Of course Kathryn should not "bend over backwards" not to open 1N on this hand just because most people wouldn't.

It could probably be argued that it's a good strategy to play a concensus style with an unknown p, even if it's contrary to one's prefered style. But style itself can never be an ethical issue. If Kathryn's partner complains about Kathryn opening 1N with this hand I might have some sympathy for them but I have absolutely no sympathy for these opps. If they are too paranoid to trust Kathryn they should set up their own tourneys. Then each paranoid player can have his own tourney 16-player tourney together with his 15 GIBs.

Disclosue is an ethical issue and it's possible that Kathryn should alert her 1N openings in regular partnerships. I'll take her words for it that it's not necesary, though.

Another thing: why on Earth do people keep complaining about strange 1N-openings. We see strange t/o doubles, strange jump shifts and strange uses of Blackwood all the time. This 1N opening doesn't come close to a "gross misstatement" of anything.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Mar 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

So here's the thing that bothers me...

Suppose my agreement was that an opening 1NT showed any 5332, 4333, 4432, or 4441 pattern within some point range. Suppose I will always open all 4441s in range with 1NT. It seems to me that this would be an alertable agreement?

However, the probabilities for these patterns are:

5332: 15.52%
4333: 10.53%
4432: 21.55%
4441: 2.99%

So overall, the 4441s comprise only about 6% of the 1NT openings.

If "I open 1NT on all 4441s in range" is alertable, I would think that another method of decision making where I more frequently have a singleton than this should also be alertable.

I did a slightly different calculation

I restricted dealer to produce hands with any of the following shapes

4432
5431
5332
4333
4441

5431 patterns comprise 20.3% of all hands
4441 patterns comprise 4.7% of all hands

So, approximately 25% of all the hands being considered contain a singleton. In my case, roughly 12.9% of all my NT opening contain a singleton. It looks like if

(I am dealt a hand with the right range for a NT opening)

and

(that hand has a 5431 or 4441 pattern)

then there is (roughly) a 51.6% chance that I will chose a 1NT opening and (roughly) a 48.4% chance that I'll chose to open 1x.

As I mentioned, I asked Ben to send me all of the hands in question. I'm going to try to look at them and see if I can find any additional patterns.

[bid_em_up]

helene_t, on Mar 20 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 20 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

Suppose you put this hand up as a poll, with the choices of 1C, 1H, 1S or 1N. What percentage would you expect 1N to receive? I am reasonably certain that the percentage would be fairly low, so the call is not justifiable by bridge logic.  Given that few, if any, would open 1N on this particular hand, and that you are probably reasonably aware of this, I really think you should bend over backwards not to do it.

As a playing director, knowing that opening 1N on a stiff is, at least, "frowned" upon, do you not think that you should be "more accountable" to abiding by this?

Of course Kathryn should not "bend over backwards" not to open 1N on this hand just because most people wouldn't.

It could probably be argued that it's a good strategy to play a concensus style with an unknown p, even if it's contrary to one's prefered style. But style itself can never be an ethical issue. If Kathryn's partner complains about Kathryn opening 1N with this hand I might have some sympathy for them but I have absolutely no sympathy for these opps. If they are too paranoid to trust Kathryn they should set up their own tourneys. Then each paranoid player can have his own tourney 16-player tourney together with his 15 GIBs.

Disclosure is an ethical issue and it's possible that Kathryn should alert her 1N openings in regular partnerships. I'll take her words for it that it's not necesary, though.

Another thing: why on Earth do people keep complaining about strange 1N-openings. We see strange t/o doubles, strange jump shifts and strange uses of Blackwood all the time. This 1N opening doesn't come close to a "gross misstatement" of anything.

Sorry Helene, I disagree. Playing directors should make every attempt possible to be beyond reproach. If someone called her to their table because their opponents opened this hand 1N, how would she rule? If she would rule in favor of the non-offending side then she sure as hell shouldn't be making the bid herself. If she would say to the non-offenders, "tough cookies, this is an anything goes tourny and they can open this hand 1N whenever they wish", then its ok for her to make the bid herself.

If she wasn't directing, she can do whatever the heck she wants as there is a 3rd party to appeal to. When she is directing, she should bend over backwards not to do something that could be considered to be "unethical" by some, underhanded by others, or downright offensive by still others.

Personally, I don't give damn what she does. Although, I do think that by a couple of her own admissions here, such as:

"fwiw, I've opened 14/147 hands 1N with a stiff" (a 10% ratio which is much too high for it not to be a partnership agreement, if playing with a regular partner)

and

"I'm looking for more opportunities to open 1N with a stiff" (paraphrased)

tend to indicate (to me, at least) that perhaps JB is prone to a more frequent opening of 1N containing a stiff than most people would reasonably expect and if the opponents happened to be aware of this fact, then they might just possibly be entitled to redress if there was a third party available to make an impersonal ruling.

Which is another reason why she should bend over backwards not to do this and especially not without disclosure.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Mar 20 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

What percentage of people do you think read the ACBL handbook before playing in ACBL tourneys? Far less than half, I'll bet.

I think you are probably right. And yet every ACBL member will assume such erudition on the part of every opponent he plays against in a non-ACBL event (heck, perhaps even an ACBL one). Well, perhaps not every one, but it certainly seems that way.

[jillybean]

I can tell you how surprised I was that 14/147 of my nt openers included a singleton, though I have been experimenting with 1nt openings. I don’t know how many of those hands were with the partner in question and I’m still not convinced that it should be alerted, neither does my partner here. With other partners I'd say there could be a case for disclosure, though I havent to date.

Bid-em-up you asked how would I rule if I was called to a table where this bid was made? In effect I was and I ruled there was no grounds for appeal, you should be asking other TDs perhaps.

As a playing TD should I bend over backwards not to do something that could be considered to be "unethical" , yes and no.
I do take measures to ensure the game is run ethically If you mean that I should avoid such things as psyches, false carding, taking anti percentage plays the answer is a resounding no! I also can’t protect myself against lucky bids or bad contracts that turn out well due to poor defense.

[mike777]

10% of your 1nt openings have a stiff over the course of a year or two, that seems high and alertable.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Mar 21 2007, 02:29 AM, said:

As a playing TD should I bend over backwards not to do something that could be considered to be "unethical" , yes and no.
I do take measures to ensure the game is run ethically If you mean that I should avoid such things as psyches, false carding, taking anti percentage plays the answer is a resounding no! I also can’t protect myself against lucky bids or  bad contracts that turn out well due to poor defense.

If by false-carding you mean psyching a signal I can sorta understand although personally I think you're going too far. If you mean dropping an honour so that it looks like a singleton, or failure to cover an honour in a text-book cover-the-honour-situation, it's an essential part of the game and there's no ethical reason not to do it, unless maybe if playing as a teacher with novices. But that's probably not what you mean.

No matter how you play you'll always run into players who think it's unethical to deviate from their own idiosyncratic style. Personally I'd hate to let my style constrain by those "ethical" non-issues. If it's really a problem, just disclose a lot about your style and about the rules that apply in your tourneys.

Seeing it from the bright side: the best thing about full disclosure is that it forces you to make explicit agreements with your partner, which is good for your partnership.

And yes, 10% of all 1NT openings containg a stiff is alertable.

[hrothgar]

Ben was kind enough to forward all of the hands where I opened 1NT with a singleton. I looked them over and extracted a few key pieces of information.

1. None of these 1NT openings occured in any of my regular partnerships. (This should come as little surprise. I typically play strong club and 4 card majors in all of my serious partnerships which eliminates the incentive for an offshape 1NT). Several of the 1NT openings happened when I was partnering different players on the forums. I have found examples of offshape 1NTs partnering (Jillybean, cherdano, Inquiry, Barmar, Ecepal, Farfie, pclayton, and Geraldo) However, in each case, I made a grand total of one offshape 1NT opening with each partner. It's entirely possible that said players refused to ever partner with me again after said incident.

2. The following hand (coincidentally the first hand in the BRBR study) represents a "prototypical" offshape 1NT opening.

♠ 5
♥ AT94
♦ AK753
♣ A92

From my perspective, 1NT is by far the best opening with this hand. If you chose to open 1♦ you're poorly positioned over any 1 level response.

* If responder advances 1♥, you're too strong for 2♥ and too weak for 3♥...

* If responder bids 1♠, a 1NT rebid misrepresents both shape and strength. 2♥ is fine with respect to shape, but you're way too light for a reverse.

* If responder bids 1NT, you could have 3N opposite a 10 count. Alternatively, 7 tricks could easily be the limit of the hand if partner has a 6 count.

I readily admit that there are lots of treatments that might permit you to unravel all the different hand types, however, is it reasonable to expect that you and a pickup partner are playing any of these?

So here's the question for the peanut gallery:

Whats the "right" thing to do here? I certainly don't have any agreement to open offshape 1NTs with any of the folks in question. Most times that I am playing 5 card majors, the total system description is something like the following: 2/1 GF with sound openings 1st and second...

Yes, there are a bunch of hands when I open an offshape 1NT, but those are largely a function of the fact that partner and I have no systemic agreements, so I try very hard to chose bids that I expect will simplify the resulting auctions.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Mar 20 2007, 07:29 PM, said:

I can tell you how surprised I was that 14/147 of my nt openers included a singleton, though I have been experimenting with 1nt openings. I don’t know how many of those hands were with the partner in question and I’m still not convinced that it should be alerted, neither does my partner here. With other partners I'd say there could be a case for disclosure, though I havent to date.

Bid-em-up you asked how would I rule if I was called to a table where this bid was made? In effect I was and I ruled there was no grounds for appeal, you should be asking other TDs perhaps.

As a playing TD should I bend over backwards not to do something that could be considered to be "unethical" , yes and no.
I do take measures to ensure the game is run ethically If you mean that I should avoid such things as psyches, false carding, taking anti percentage plays the answer is a resounding no! I also can’t protect myself against lucky bids or bad contracts that turn out well due to poor defense.

Katherine,

I think its fairly clear that you are/were unaware of how frequently you open 1N with a singleton. I also think its fairly clear from your wording in some of these posts that "you have been experimenting" or "looking for opportunities to do this" which means that you may well be doing it more often than you actually intend to.

A 10% ratio is high enough such that any partner that you have played with on a regular basis (and I have no idea of how many partners that might be) could be aware of your tendency to open 1N with a stiff, even though you have no such actual agreement to do so. If you are going to continue to do it, I suggest you come to an agreement on it in your regular partnerships, and start to alert it.

I believe that a third party director would likely rule against you in this case, and definitely would, if he was aware of the frequency that you open 1N with a stiff or had cautioned you about it in a prior instance.

False carding, psyches, anti-percentage plays are all part of the game. That is not what I was referring to. Sorry that the written medium doesn't let me express it any better.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Mar 21 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

None of these 1NT openings occured in any of my regular partnerships.......

However, in each case, I only made one offshape 1NT opening with each partner. .

I think these two sentences sum it up well.

In your regular partnerships, it appears that you don't do it. So if you happened to open 1N on a stiff for whatever reason, partner certainly would not be expecting it, and you probably wouldn't do it again for another 500-1000 hands or more, if ever again.

In the other cases, you were playing with different partners each time, so none of the individual partners could be aware of the fact that you had done this with the others. So if we assumed that you played 12 boards (one 12 bd tourny) with each of the eight different players giving a ratio of 8/96 or approximately 8%. While this is a high percentage for the norm, the fact that you were playing with different people precludes each of them from being aware that you might have a singleton on your NT opening bid. Partner will be as clueless about it as the opponents will, so there is no problem.

Additionally, when you do open 1N with a stiff, it is quite likely that you are able to give some rational explanation as to why you chose this bid, and what rebid problems that you anticipated having in the subsequent auction to justify the opening.

[jillybean]

bid_em_up, on Mar 21 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

Additionally, when you do open 1N with a stiff, it is quite likely that you are able to give some rational explanation as to why you chose this bid, and what rebid problems that you anticipated having in the subsequent auction to justify the opening.

This comment is either off topic and misleading or not accurate.
I do not need a rational explanation to make a bid, my opps may not like it and my partner may never play with me again but I can bid what ever takes my fancy at the time.

bid_em_up, on Mar 21 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

A 10% ratio is high enough such that any partner that you have played with on a regular basis (and I have no idea of how many partners that might be) could be aware of your tendency to open 1N with a stiff, even though you have no such actual agreement to do so.

So this makes it ok for Richard to open 1nt with a stiff 12.9% of the time with random partners but its not ok for me to open <10% with unknown #partners?

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Mar 21 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

So this makes it ok for Richard to open 1nt with a stiff 12.9% of the time with random partners but its not ok for me to open <10% with unknown #partners?

I have a suspicion, just a suspicion, mind you. This applies to Richard, not to Kathryn.

I think one of the reasons why the ACBL is so hardass about 1NT openers with shortness is because the followups that most people play have the 1NT opener end up as declarer. Therefore, when you have a pro and a client playing together, it's of enormous temptation for the pro to open NT on anything that vaguely resembles a NT opener, and for the client to take the 1NT opener out of their bidding box.

When I was 12, and playing at the game in my local Senior Citizens center, we ended up with an odd number once. After calling around, my partner turned out to be one of the best people in the region, who normally didn't play in petty stuff like this but somehow got talked into it. Well, I screwed up the play early on, and figured out that my partner was a whole lot better then me, so I started directing every hand every hand her way. I didn't open 1NT, and if she bid NT along the way that's where we were going to end up playing it.

At the end of the night, after the last hand was played, she didn't even bother putting her hand back in the board. "Three no trump! Three no trump! All you ever say is three no trump!" she yelled, and stormed out of the room.

She never found out we had a 73% game.

I don't know Richard, and I haven't played with him that I know of. If I'm insulting him by saying this, then I apologize in advance. But I can't help but wonder, when he's playing these hands with unfamiliar partners, if a little voice in his subconscious isn't saying "If I open this 1NT, I'll get to declare, and I'm more confident in my play than my partner's". I think it's that sort of thing, conscious or unconscious, that the ACBL is trying to avoid.

You're not playing by ACBL rules, and you're certainly not bound by them. But the ACBL would take a very dim view of frequently opening 1NT with a singleton even in an indy- it's not a question of partnership agreement. And frankly, any location should take a dim view of one person having the 'tendency' to open over half their hands with a singleton, no six card suit and the right range 1NT, and their partner never doing so. At some point, it really does stop being a tendency, and starts being two different systems.

[cherdano]

Let's assume for a moment that we are outside a sponsoring organization that has precise rules about when a 1N bid is alertable.

I really don't understand why a 1N opening that could possibly have a singleton should be an alertable treatment (even assuming there is a partnership understanding about it). For me that is just a style issue, and I just don't think we can expect alerts for non-standard styles as long as the bid in question is still entirely natural.
Asking Jilly to alert her 1N openers is to me the same as MikeH asking for alerts of possibly light 1m-1x responses, or some of my German bridge fellows asking for an alert of 1m - 1H - 2H if it could be based on 3 card support. In all cases, the only reason for the alert is a non-mainstream style (in the last case not mainstream German style), but alerts are for artificial bids, not for style issues. Otherwise, the folks for whom a w2 opener still denies a side 4 card major would have to alert their bid (unless we find out that this style is still the majority style, in which case those for whom it does not deny a 4card major would have to alert them).

Arend

[jillybean]

..

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Mar 21 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 21 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

Additionally, when you do open 1N with a stiff, it is quite likely that you are able to give some rational explanation as to why you chose this bid, and what rebid problems that you anticipated having in the subsequent auction to justify the opening.

This comment is either off topic and misleading or not accurate.
I do not need a rational explanation to make a bid, my opps may not like it and my partner may never play with me again but I can bid what ever takes my fancy at the time.

bid_em_up, on Mar 21 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

A 10% ratio is high enough such that any partner that you have played with on a regular basis (and I have no idea of how many partners that might be) could be aware of your tendency to open 1N with a stiff, even though you have no such actual agreement to do so.

So this makes it ok for Richard to open 1nt with a stiff 12.9% of the time with random partners but its not ok for me to open <10% with unknown #partners?

You seem to be missing the point.

Of course you can make whatever bid happens to "take your fancy" at the time. However, any competent director will begin to rule against you when you continue to do this if they are aware of the fact, unless you can cite some reasonable explanation for the bid (which you can't, other than "thats what I felt like bidding").

And evidently, your flights of fancy are frequent enough that either 1) your partners wont play with you again (since you keep suggesting such), or 2) they do play with you again and are now aware of your little adventures into the stratosphere. In the first case, it doesnt matter what you do, as you will never be playing with this person again, in the second case it is now somewhat of an implied partnership agreement.

There is a big difference between Richard doing it 12% of the time with random partners (and only once with each partner) and you doing it 10% of the time with x number of unknown partners. I read the latter as saying "I cant tell you how many people I have done this with or who I do it with", but you acknowledge that you do it on a regular basis, and I must "assume" that at least occasionally, you play with a partner that you have played with before. Any partner you have played with before is likely to be aware of your tendency to have these trips into the cosmos.

If instead, you mean that you do this but every time it is with a different partner, then there is no problem as your partner will be just as unaware of your tendency to do it as the opponents are.

A second note, I must infer that you are assuming Richard did it 12% of the time (1 time each/8 different partners) which is not a valid calculation. In his case it is not listed as 14/147 times that he actually opened 1N. If he opened 1N three times with each partner, his actual frequency of occurence is 1/3 with each partner, for 33%. While this is indeed high, each partner is totally unaware of his tendency to do this. If he continued to do it at this rate, with the same players, then, yes, there is a problem.....unless he can show that there is a valid rebid problem on the hand.

Your ratio, as provided, is 14 times out of 147 times that you have opened 1N. That is 10% of the time you open 1N, which clearly is higher than most people would expect. If you are always playing with different partners, then there is no problem. If you are playing with the same one, then yes, there is.